| { |
| "paper_id": "T75-2019", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:43:26.051751Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "SOME THOUGHTS ON SCHEMATA", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Wallace", |
| "middle": [ |
| "L" |
| ], |
| "last": "Chafe", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "University of California Berkeley CA", |
| "location": {} |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "T75-2019", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "I will assume that much of the knowledge being talked about has been stored in nonverbal form, so that the same kinds of verbalization processes must be applied. I find the most interesting processes in verbalization to be those in which the speaker has to make a choice of some kind. At another time when this speaker told the same story she expressed the same event with the words, \"She pounded it.\" Here the frame was different, being no longer benefactive but expressing rather an action performed on an object.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "And in this version a different categorization was chosen also. The event was interpreted as an instance of pounding, not of making. He found a pot full of gold, and on the lid of the pot was an inscription in a language which he did not understand.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The pot together with its lid were put on display at the village inn, and one day a scholar stopped at the inn and was able to translate the inscripion.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It said, \"Look lower; where this stood, is another twice as good.\" The man who had found the pot heard of this and returned to the tree, where further digging uncovered another pot which contained twice as much gold as the first.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "the highest level this story consists of two major parts, the second of which begins with the words, \"and on the lid of the pot was an inscription...\" If the story ended before these words (as in fact in some versions it does), it would still be a perfectly good and complete story.But of special interest is the fact that there is a schema in the first part which is used again in the second. This schema consists of a puzzle being presented (through the dreams or through the inscription), of a solution to the puzzle being provided by some stranger, and of a payoff resulting from the solution.But this schema seems less obvious than the visit schema in the Caddo story.It is not so directly defined by the overt events, and is something that people who hear the story are not likely to be immediately aware of. It is also less directly reflected in the way the story is told.(One may note that the two instances of this schema, the two major parts of the story, are not even separated by a sentence boundary, let alone a paragraph boundary.) The question, then, is whether some schemata are more abstract than others.Again, the determinants and effects of the degree of abstractness are not wholly clear. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "At", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": {}, |
| "ref_entries": {} |
| } |
| } |
